Will his Birther issue derail Ted Cruz’s presidential dream? | by Tony Castro | @ VOXXI.com

Will his “Birther” issue derail Ted Cruz’s presidential dream? | by Tony Castro | @ VOXXI.com

At VOXXI.com:  ” … And as Obama could likely tell Cruz, it’s an issue that doesn’t go away, even if you’re almost halfway through your second term in the White House. When asked about whether he’s eligible, Cruz’s stock answer of late has been:

“I was born in Calgary. My father is Cuban. My mother is American. My mother was a U.S. citizen by birth, so under U.S. law, I was an American citizen by birth. Those are the facts.”

Cruz maintains that he is an American citizen by birth, fulfilling the requirement of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that a person needs to be a “natural born citizen” to be president.

But just as Obama is still hammered by some critics about his birther issue, so too do questions continue to be raised in some quarters about Cruz’s constitutional standing to become president because of his birth in Canada. … ”  Read the rest of the article here:  http://voxxi.com/2014/08/31/birthers-ted-cruz/

# # # #

Comment about this by CDR Kerchner (Ret):  A message to Senator Cruz from me and basic logic:  Being declared by man-made positive law that one is a Citizen at Birth is not sufficient.  Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens” at birth. Natural born Citizens are created by “natural law” and the laws of nature, not man-made “positive law”. Read more on types of citizenship and basic logic here: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

This important constitutional issue will not go away not matter how much both major political parties wish to make it go away so they can run politically sexy candidates of their choice without regard for the eligibility clause as to who is legally and constitutionally eligible. Watch as  Jim Rubens, U.S. Senate candidate in NH, does a polite verbal tap dance of sorts when asked about what “natural born Citizen of the United States” means to constitutional standards and its impact on several “rising star” potential Republican Party candidates for Pres and CinC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oIs7UPYsI0

Then learn the real facts about the true historical and legal meaning of “natural born Citizen of the United States” by reading the articles below and also linked to via the links below my signature.

Read these essays regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

4 thoughts on “Will his Birther issue derail Ted Cruz’s presidential dream? | by Tony Castro | @ VOXXI.com”

  1. I don’t know what it is going to take but I am glad there people out there trying to protect the constitution. Although the constitution does not specifically detail the meaning of natural born citizen, more than a few have said in supreme court decisions that a natural born citizen is derived by two citizen parents. It is considered “common law” and everyone was familiar with the meaning. Also the first congress and United States vs Velvalee Malvena Blucher Dickenson where the federal judge Shackleford Miller Jr. selected the point she was a natural born citizen.

    I think it well to remember that Eisenhower forced hundreds if not thousands of people to walk through some German death camps in effort to stem those that would deny the Holocaust . Today there are those that do so. In the same light, there are those that refuse to accept the acknowledged truth of natural born citizen that requires two citizen parents because it does not fit their agenda.

    Further, Ted Cruz is the 4th largest spender in the senate and we need answers to a lot more questions from this guy. Yes he’s hit some home runs but that does not mean he’s qualified for president. We already have an unqualified president.

    Further, it bothers me that Cruz has not already said he was not qualified and challenged Obama on it. So that tells me Cruz is not a good choice for what he is not saying.

    1. Agreed, Ed.

      An attempt to clarify the matter would be to draw attention to the fact that the WHOLE POINT of the exercise, in making it a requirement for the office of the presidency (and that particular federal office ONLY, let it be noted, and understood, in all its ramifications) that the candidate be a “natural born” citizen, RATHER THAN JUST A CITIZEN, was to make sure – at least as sure as the constitutional Framers could make it – that the person ultimately occupying that office – who would ALSO become the Commander in Chief of the nation’s military forcers; let it be likewise noted – did not have the taint of any DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And like a dual citizen. Like Obama.

      Who is a Usurper in the office; and needs to be dealt with accordingly, for the rule of law to be maintained in the nation. And not be overthrown, in favor of the rule of men. Which invokes tyrants. Again: like Obama.

      Cruz is being disingenuous in talking about being just a “citizen”. He was not born a “natural born” citizen, on account of BOTH his place of birth AND his parentage, with his father not having been a U.S. citizen at the time. He is not eligible for that office. Or the office of the VP, for that matter, as subsequently added to the picture, via the constitutional amending process – the only legal process in altering the meaning AND INTENT of the contract that formed the United States of America.

      But maybe that’s the way they teach these things in Harvard Law School… unfortunately, not a joke. Well; IT is a joke, if he was advised by professors there in a way that led him to his sophistic take on the matter.

      Let’s get clear on this matter. And move on. Legally.

  2. “Ambiguity” is the villain, that has turned an age old maxim and Constitutional Black-Letter Law into a no-mans land Citizen of the World irrational construction of the most natural state of “citizenship” imaginable, being born of citizen parents within the country of THEIR choice, then, and only then, by the child’s TACIT CONSENT, is born a “natural born citizen” of the country of their parents.

    The 1790 Act confirms those circumstances, (U.S. Citizen father with wife / mother made U.S. Citizen by the doctrine of Coverture), even though it enlarges it temporarily to accommodate those Citizens gone abroad that that may have been in service of U.S. Foreign Affairs under John Jay, thereby avoiding an Ex post Facto Law on those persons. (rationalization by informed speculation)

Comments are closed.